People v. Isaac

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Isaac

48 A.D.3d 1079, 849 N.Y.S.2d 842

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 1, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 1079 (People v. Isaac) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Isaac, 48 A.D.3d 1079, 849 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered August 30, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled [1080]*1080substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). The sole contention of defendant on appeal is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to pursue a certain legal theory in attacking the validity of the search warrant. To the extent that the contention of defendant survives his guilty plea (see People v McCoy, 21 AD3d 1275 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 756 [2005]), we conclude that it lacks merit. Defendant has failed to establish that his proposed legal theory, if advanced, would have been successful (see People v Matthews, 27 AD3d 1115 [2006]; McCoy, 21 AD3d at 1276). On the record before us, we conclude that defendant was afforded meaningful representation because he received “an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Present— Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered August 30, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled [1080]*1080substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). The sole contention of defendant on appeal is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to pursue a certain legal theory in attacking the validity of the search warrant. To the extent that the contention of defendant survives his guilty plea (see People v McCoy, 21 AD3d 1275 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 756 [2005]), we conclude that it lacks merit. Defendant has failed to establish that his proposed legal theory, if advanced, would have been successful (see People v Matthews, 27 AD3d 1115 [2006]; McCoy, 21 AD3d at 1276). On the record before us, we conclude that defendant was afforded meaningful representation because he received “an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Present— Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 1079, 849 N.Y.S.2d 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-isaac-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack